I'd like to see everyone's opinions on this. What if the cyber community peeled off to be it's own distinct designator, and the rest of us (sigint/IO), woke up as a piece of the 1830 designator? I'm a proud cryppie, but due to the wider break in our scope of work; I think that I could live with this. Thoughts?

0

Last edited by LDOspook on Wed May 24, 2017 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LDOspook wrote:I'd like to see everyone's opinions on this. What if the cyber community peeled off to be it's own distinct designator, and the rest of us (sigint/IO), woke up as a piece of the 1830 designator? I'm a proud cryppie, but due to the wider break in our scope of work;think I could live with this. Thoughts?

"Cyber community", the workplaces and people that work in the business of "cyber". I realize that is a pretty large grouping, but what I am getting at is a distinct break in the community iot allow for growth and a future development of a "cadre" that is exclusive to cyber (or SIGINT). I can see how my proposal is somewhat blasphemous, however several of the other services lump sigint into the intel domain, and always have. I love being a cryppie, but I can see a time when it becomes risky to ask Officers to jump between some fairly distinct lanes of expertise. I'm not a cyber guy, so this isn't a pitch for cyber to be it's own community, I'm just curious to the CW wardroom's opinions.

LDOspook wrote:"Cyber community", the workplaces and people that work in the business of "cyber". I realize that is a pretty large grouping, but what I am getting at is a distinct break in the community iot allow for growth and a future development of a "cadre" that is exclusive to cyber (or SIGINT). I can see how my proposal is somewhat blasphemous, however several of the other services lump sigint into the intel domain, and always have. I love being a cryppie, but I can see a time when it becomes risky to ask Officers to jump between some fairly distinct lanes of expertise. I'm not a cyber guy, so this isn't a pitch for cyber to be it's own community, I'm just curious to the CW wardroom's opinions.

Not judging at all. This idea has merit.

Again, though, if you could better describe the who involved? CTN, IT, 1820, 1810?

The entire IWC could use a fresh look, in my opinion. It can't just be a coincidence that the 4+ communities we combined were perfectly made for one another.

I sort of doubt there is much stomach for so much more change, however.

I completely agree with you on the "stomach for change"! I feel sorry for the amount of UIM(s) Sailors have changed out on their uniforms over the last few years!

To be specific, I was thinking more about the 1810 community, however if we look at the "cyber community" as a whole, then we are looking at numerous designators and groups (Officer and Enlisted), and then the entire "Cyber Service" discussion comes into play. Trust me, I have no great to desire to join the intel designator, but when we really look at the numerous work roles that 1810(s) are doing, this idea begins to look sensible. I appreciate the discussion!

LDOspook wrote:I completely agree with you on the "stomach for change"! I feel sorry for the amount of UIM(s) Sailors have changed out on their uniforms over the last few years!

To be specific, I was thinking more about the 1810 community, however if we look at the "cyber community" as a whole, then we are looking at numerous designators and groups (Officer and Enlisted), and then the entire "Cyber Service" discussion comes into play. Trust me, I have no great to desire to join the intel designator, but when we really look at the numerous work roles that 1810(s) are doing, this idea begins to look sensible. I appreciate the discussion!

If this were to change, I think we'd need a more comprehensive plan.

Re-scope the IWC to have 3 major tribes -- Intel, Cyber, and Metoc.

Intel would be composed of an Officer Corps (blend 1810 and 1830) plus IS, CTR, CTT, CTI ratings. Core competencies would be OPINTEL, HUMINT, and SIGINT.

Cyber would be composed of an Officer Corps (blend 1810 and 1810) and IT, CTN ratings. Core competencies would be IT, OCO, DCO.

My concern on the blending of (current) 1810's and (current) 1830's ... I am currently at ONI, the only 1810 in my command that has about 120 1830's (ALONE AND UNAFRAID I SAY!!!), I am in charge of over 40 1830's (O1-O3) ... what they do is not like the jobs I have done as an 1810 at sea or ashore, based on what I am seeing / supervising ... the skill sets and missions are really different, especially when deployed (SIGWO vs. DESRON IO etc.)

Could it be done, probably ... would it be effective? Maybe (probably dependent on the individuals as much as 'the system').

0

The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.

I've lived SIGINT as part of a larger Intel community in a different service and it wasn't a good news story. Even so, that was a different time (the peace dividend in the 1990s) and there was always a shared focus between the various INTs of the Intel branch. The downside was related to pecking order of INTs inside particular Battalions, Brigades, and throughout the Army. There are very good reasons to maintain SIGINT separately.

However, a reasonable argument could be made in support of realigning SIGINT, EW under INTEL, if it can bring about an improved level of effort and results in those SIGINT and EW specific jobs. The construct of deploying ships at sea makes SIGINT more central to the Navy intel picture (IMO) than it is in the other services. The Intel community is already well positioned to wield great practical influence over SIGINT/EW at IFOR/IWDC by determining and delivering instruction (such as WTI). Naturally, that will greatly influence FFC and fleet perspectives. FCC/C10F carries the mantle for those items, but I'm not sure what/if it intends to improve/address/integrate into the Fleet (under the IWC primary warfare area). I definitely think it should be discussed - it could bring about a better way for the Navy to do business.

As for change, we've had tons. But, if something isn't working or can work better, I'm an advocate for changing until it does. It's painful, but the only way to get where we need to be is to maintain flexibility and keep trying. Also, I think this kind of a change would largely only affect the officer corps, and our enlisted would still do their jobs in the same way, regardless of the designator of their division officer, dept head, CO. I know of one Navy intel shop which already works cryptologic METLs with 9-10 CTT/CTR billets and zero cryptologic officers. They would certainly be better off with a cryppie officer, but they are doing a job (with some help) which wasn't being done previously. So, i guess it's possible. Whatever comes, i do think SIGINT and EW should have a tracked specialty to guarantee acumen in afloat/operational senior leadership levels .